Francine Lalonde

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, research has been done by students and those who are concerned by this issue of student grants.

I think there is hope in that regard. But students have warned us and rightly so against the temptation to make the future generations bear alone the weight of education, which is a tool for our community development. I am very sensitive to this argument. It would be too easy in the end to say that they have only to study now and pay later. In fact, now is the time to share. That is why I am very disappointed with this bill. The minister had promised to introduce an innovative bill which would deal with the real problems. It seems to me he failed completely.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, those who hoped that by launching wide consultations on the reform of social programs, not only in the papers he published himself but also in the comments he made here, including student assistance programs, the Minister of Human Resources Development would initiate a real reform have been disappointed. How can the minister, before the consultations, before submitting an action plan that would trigger reactions, come up with a project that, instead of the hope repeatedly promised and announced in a passionate tone of voice, only offers to young people the possibility of getting deeper into debt?

Except for a few scholarships and a possible rebate for those who have reached the maximum debt level, the only hope is for getting into debt. This bill only offers the hope of getting into debt while ensuring a real and effective centralization, as I will try to demonstrate.

First of all, let us keep in mind that young people do not start out with the same advantages, whether they are born male or female, rich or poor, to a family that stresses education or one that has too many problems to give it the importance it should have. There is a great injustice right from the beginning of life. That is why some countries choose to work to make education if not completely at least widely available to all young people as long as they have the necessary abilities.

We know that hope in life, the hope to find a job, despite their scarcity-we will come back to that later-, depends to a large extent on the capacity to study and get a degree. In some countries, France for example, education is completely free. Others offer scholarships or loans. In Canada, depending on what each province wants, both scholarships and loans are sometimes available. In Quebec, which has a loans and bursaries program, students have been complaining since the 1980s that bursaries are being reduced while loans have increased.

For a long time, the federal government has subsidized education; this is a fact, and we cannot rewrite history. But in the previous Student Loans Act, at least it respected the provinces' wishes.

To begin with, I would like to emphasize that the federal government subsidizes education in two ways. First, by way of EPF, a program created many years ago, it transfers funds collected from taxpayers to provinces for education. These funds have diminished. I will give you an example taken from the budget. In 1992-93, the funds amounted to $2.8 billion, but for 1994-95, they will total $2.119 billion. And this is at a time when the number of students is rising and when the market is growing for graduates from expensive fields of study.

One the one hand, the central government's help is decreasing, but, on the other, student assistance is also decreasing. What the government is doing here is decreasing this aid, which is not direct aid but a loan to be repaid by the students. It is replacing a grant it no longer gives by another way for students to get into debt. That is the bill's real aim.

So, it is more debt and more centralization. Students' indebtedness, as my colleague said before, is always increasing. This bill, according to the department's figures, provides that the funds available for loans will rise from $1.8 billion to $5 billion. Students will have access to higher education, but they will have to get into debt to do it. What is the context?

First of all, the cost of education has risen because federal contributions have been dropping. Education costs three times more now than in 1984. In Quebec, a similar increase took place in the last three years. Because of high unemployment, students have a hard time finding a summer job to pay for their education the way they did in the past. To get by, when I was a student, I used to work during the summer like many other students did. What are the students doing now? More and more, they are studying part-time and combining school and work.

Some may think this is excellent because students will know how much their education costs. Let me refer to the experience of all university and college students and teachers in the world. Of course one could understand when students studied and had part-time jobs on the weekend. However, the students' need to work, whether they are in college or in university, has been constantly increasing, to the point where schedules in these institutions are now influenced by the reality of part-time work.

But that is not all. In recent years, I worked as a lecturer at UQUAM and at the Université de Montréal. I noticed how strong the pressure created by this part-time work was on students, teachers and, ultimately, the education system as a whole. This is true not only in Quebec but also elsewhere.

So, we will be penalized when our students later become professionals or scientists and have to compete against their peers from other countries who will have had the opportunity to dedicate all their time and energy to studying. A commitment to studying is not only an individual commitment; it is also a collective one. Consequently, to feel good about the fact that, in the end, students make it by working part-time and getting deeper into debt is to bury one's head in the sand.

The greater incidence of part-time work has a disastrous effect on the quality of education and the ability of students, during this privileged time of their life, to passionately dedicate themselves to the pleasures of research. If students do not have this opportunity at this particular time, they certainly will not have it later on. Some who have had to work part-time know how hard it is not to be able to fully dedicate oneself to one's studies.

I should add that getting into debt does not have the same meaning for a student in arts or literature. We all hope that, in the future, many will continue to take law, engineering, medicine, teaching, or simply improve their knowledge, in the hope to find a career.

I am not overly bothered by the fact that a medical student can incur debts of $30,000. However, I read this morning that Bernard Lamarre, President of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, said that 4,500 to 5,000 engineers in Quebec are currently unemployed. Now even an engineer cannot be sure that he will be able easily, or just plain able, to repay a debt that can be as high as $12,000 or even $15,000, on average. The bill provides a possible reduction if it is over $16,000.

Who will recommend that a student going into teaching-we do not know if he will find work-or many other fields where jobs are scarce should go up to his neck in debt? Let me say that this is an unsolved problem of my generation, which we share with others here. It is a miserable failure because instead of preparing for the year 2000, 2010 and 2020, we find ourselves in an even more difficult situation. Although we may be satisfied with the number of students, in fact, when we look at the whole system, this issue of funding is extremely difficult and it is our generation's failure. It is a failure for which we will pay dearly.

I also want to talk about the centralization which this bill represents. I will only take a few points, in particular, the definition of appropriate authority.

In the old law-I should say in the current law-the appropriate authority is a person, body or other authority designated as such by the lieutenant governor in council of the province for the purposes of this Act. So the authority is designated by the province concerned.

The bill says: "Appropriate Authorities: 3.(1) For the purposes of this Act, the minister-of course, the minister who is a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada-may, by order, designate for a province-again, it is the minister who

has this power-an appropriate authority, which authority may designate as designated educational institutions any institutions of learning in Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions".

In the existing legislation, a designated educational institution in or outside Canada was also designated by the Lieutenant-Governor. In this bill, the same authority designated by the minister or another authority also designated by the minister will decide which educational institutions will be designated in or outside Canada. It is obvious that these two provisions clearly transfer control of the student financial assistance program from the provinces to the minister.

In some cases, the provinces do not mind losing that power. Nevertheless, according to our Constitution, education comes under provincial jurisdiction. I think the federal government is going too far by saying in this bill that it is the minister who will designate the appropriate authority for a province, especially in this context of broad consultations about a social reform that is supposed to give hope to Canadians.

It seems to me that the minister should listen to our criticisms regarding centralization and indebtedness, that they should encourage him to wait. There are a few incentives for students in this bill, although I do not have enough time to talk about all of them. For instance, the federal government does dangle the prospect of bursaries in front of them. But this is centralisation, because these bursaries would come directly from the central government. The government could give these incentives without having to overhaul the current legislation and define new relationships between the Minister of Human Resources Development and the provinces.

There are other signs of centralization. Certificates of eligibility refer to the determination of the assistance needed by persons eligible for loans. In the bill, the appropriate authority may issue or cause to be issued for a period of studies a certificate of eligibility to a qualifying student whom that authority considers-there are two conditions specified in the legislation-( a ) to have attained a satisfactory scholastic standard; and ( b ) to be in need of a loan for that period. But this is determined by the appropriate authority designated for the province.

Here, it is specified: "Subject to the regulations". Do we know what the regulations are? No. "Subject to the regulations, the appropriate authority designated by the same Minister may, on application, issue or cause to be issued to a qualifying student a certificate of eligibility, in the prescribed form, for a period of studies at a designated educational institution-we saw how it was designated, in Canada, by the appropriate authority designated by the Minister, or outside Canada, by the appropriate authority designated by the Minister. So, both characteristics are the same, but subject to the regulations, and the regulations are determined by the Minister.

Suffice it to say, in conclusion, that this bill stigmatizes the failure of our generation, the generation now in power in this government, to give effectively and for good an opportunity, if not equal at least less unequal, to young people, no matter what their origin is, but subject of course to their ability and their will to study.

This is a bill that gives absolutely no indication about what can be expected in this country and, as a spokesperson for the Official Opposition, and in spite of my convictions, which are well known, I say that no matter what hopes one might have for that reform, I think that this bill destroys them. This bill is cause for concern because it was not intended in the first place to help the students since it only allows them to go into debt, and they are not even sure of finding a job when they graduate. As for centralization, it is consistent with a commitment by a federal government which decides alone in Ottawa on what is good for everybody.

[Social Programs, May 12th, 1994]

The question asked was: When will the meeting slated for April 18 be held with all of the provinces to initiate a process?

Can the Minister, under these circumstances, and because the meeting did not take place and a new date has not been announced, confirm that his action plan, originally slated to be ready at the end of April, will be tabled before Parliament recesses as scheduled on June 14?

[Social Programs, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The Ontario Legislature yesterday passed, almost unanimously, a resolution calling on the federal government to negotiate with the provinces concerning its reform of social programs. In addition, the Premier of Ontario, who is concerned about the budgetary impact of reform on his province, said that many of the programs targeted by the federal initiative come, for the most part, under exclusive or shared provincial jurisdiction.

In view of the major objections raised by Quebec and now Ontario concerning the centralizing objectives of the government's reform proposals, when will the Minister of Human Resources Development finally sit down with the provinces and negotiate directly with them? When will the meeting slated for April 18 finally take place?

[Unemployment Insurance Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur right away that the official opposition will support the amendment he is proposing to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I will also support his efforts to have the Minister of Human Resources Development move as quickly as possible on an amendment of this nature.

After listening to your argument, I would like to call to mind the difference between a jury and a juror. A jury is a group of citizens legally appointed to hand down a verdict in a case brought before a court. The jury has an important responsibility, namely to settle differences in personal, delicate and often emotional cases. A jury may be called upon to hand down a verdict in a criminal case and in cases of summary offences and minor crimes such as thefts. In society, juries are considered to be the underpinnings of our judicial institutions and most of the studies carried out have confirmed that they do indeed serve a valid function.

Jurors, on the other hand, are selected at random from voter registration lists. They cannot be excused from jury duty unless they work for the National Assembly, a provincial legislature or the House of Commons or unless they suffer from a physical handicap or sensory impairment. The fact of being unemployed is not a valid reason to be excused.

Jurors are entitled to only $25 a day in compensation, including a midday meal, two snacks and two bus tickets. So they only get $25 a day to perform what we admit is not only a task but also an important social and collective responsibility.

The law already forbids an employer to dismiss or penalize an employee for jury duty. However, the law does not require the employer to pay that employee-this is a matter in provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, unionized employees in big companies are usually paid by their employer, but employees of small companies are not, except in unusual circumstances.

What happens with the Unemployment Insurance Act, which concerns the hon. member? This Act does not exempt someone for being a juror. So if I understand Bill C-216 correctly, an unemployed person who is entitled to unemployment insurance and not available for work because of jury duty will be disqualified from collecting UI.

This is a flagrant injustice which is not in provincial jurisdiction since it is simply a matter of applying the Unemployment Insurance Act which applies to everyone.

I would add-and I think that this is the most important point, basically-that most of the time, jurors are ordinary people. They are just regular folks and these days, with so much unemployment, they are indeed likely to be without work when they are chosen.

Although this House cannot vote on your bill, I think that it should find a way through some ordinary process or institution or the minister's ability to amend his law to do justice to people who are already penalized by being unemployed. Accordingly this amendment should be approved without hesitation and without delay. I commend the hon. member for his initiative.

[Canada Petroleum Resources Act, May 9th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On March 25, I asked the Minister of Finance the following question, after reminding him that we had just learned that for the next two years, unemployment insurance cuts would amount to $630 million a year in the maritimes, and $535 million in Quebec. We do not know what they will be this year, and it appears that Employment and Immigration does not know either.

My question was: Is the Minister of Finance prepared to defer cutbacks in the unemployment insurance system at least long enough to put in place a real job creation strategy to help the jobless find work instead of forcing them onto welfare? Six hundred and thirty million dollars a year in Atlantic Canada and $535 million in Quebec, and I am not mentioning cuts in Ontario and western Canada because cuts in Quebec and the maritimes represent 60 per cent of the total whereas they only have 33 per cent of the Canadian population.

Such cuts will have a devastating impact on the economy and yet, the government went ahead and announced these cuts without further consideration. That is why I am asking today if it is prepared to defer its decision at least long enough for these cuts to be preceded by a real job creation program. I will keep on asking the same question as long as Bill C-17 has not been passed, hoping that the minister will change his mind.

In the words of Alain Dubuc, a La Presse columnist with whom the Official Opposition does not always agree, ``Finance Minister Axworthy is mistaken, because the cuts can be found in the budget. He is cutting before helping people''. Not only is he going ahead with the cuts, he is targeting the regions which will be deprived of substantial sums of money. This money, when awarded, usually goes to pay rent, buy food and pay for goods which are not only essential to people's survival but also help keep the local economy humming.

Therefore, before depriving these regions whose industries have already been hard hit from a structural standpoint, why does the minister not postpone his decision so that a true program can be implemented, one that will restore hope. Hope is what the people want, but instead, the government has fostered a climate of despair.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition has tabled an amendment to have a royal commission of inquiry instead of adopting the bill before the House today. I have said before in this House that there was a taint of manoeuvring around the contracts, of which there are a quite a few, which were concluded when Terminals 1 and 2 were privatized. This taint could only be removed by a commission of inquiry that would investigate this matter. My colleagues have said so repeatedly, but apparently that has fallen on deaf ears, not yours, Mr. Speaker but those of our colleagues opposite.

It should be clear to them since the Liberals are involved through the people who contribute to the party's coffers, that if compensation payments are not made in full public view, the suspicion will linger that money changed hands under the table. There will always be some suspicion that ties between the traditional parties and governments and the contributors to party coffers remain intact and that this is a case of you scratch my back and I scratch yours. People will wonder: How much will the government secretly agree to pay to a certain investor and why? How much, to whom and why? These questions should be considered, or at least the answers to those questions should be given publicly, and the underlying reasons should also be made known.

Why will the government not let a third party evaluate this deal, a third party with an obligation to answer to the citizens of Canada? Otherwise, consider the opportunities for collusion among individuals who are in a position to benefit from such deals, at the expense of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada? Of course this may not happen, but people will never be sure.

My colleagues have said that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. In this case, we will never be sure there was no collusion.

Who does the government want to protect and why? That is the question. Why does not the government want to know all the facts? Is the strong taint around these transactions not convincing enough? Does the government think that by cleaning up mess, it may be contaminated in the process? How much is this going to cost taxpayers? Can we accept the risk that several hundred or several thousand or even several million dollars will be misspent?

In this connection, I feel I must recall what was said in the course of another debate we had in this House, which will be resumed after the committee has done its work, and I am referring to the cuts in the unemployment insurance program. When an unemployment insurance applicant signs his form and makes a mistake, be it of a week, a day or an hour, not only can the government claim back the money paid in excess, but it can also brand the person a cheater. Even if the Act were not amended, that is what would happen. The government which wants a free hand to give compensation it calls just to investors, some of whom, as we know, contribute to the party's coffers, that same government introduced Bill C-17 which seeks to increase the number of weeks necessary to qualify for unemployment insurance.

That same government wants to limit the number of weeks of entitlement and in that case we are not talking about thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are talking of a few dollars that the workers really need. Yet, in many cases, these workers are going to be deprived of sums of money very important to them. Of course, the sums involved would not be a suitable compensation for an investor, but to unemployed workers they would help pay the rent and feed the family.

I wish to stress that too often there are two categories of people in this country. The ordinary citizens who have a hard time earning a living, because jobs are scarce, and must respect the law to a tee or be faced with costly penalties. And there are the others, who belong to an ill-defined circle, but can easily take advantage of the gravy train.

At a time when it is so hard for ordinary citizens to make ends meet, when jobs are hard to get, when it is very difficult to raise children and give them an education, we cannot in any way let the government apply a double standard and compensate investors, who certainly spent time and energy, but have probably been compensated already. We cannot let the government yield to undue pressure. Justice is not enough, there must also be appearance of justice.

I should say that Torontonians and Canadians who rely on Pearson Airport should be glad to be spared this deal. The contract provisions which were brought to light in the Nixon report-it was not a royal commission but it makes you want one-reveal that Toronto's economic development would bear little resemblance to the projections based on 30 years and even on 57 years. Without a doubt Torontonians have had a narrow escape.

I can say that because in Quebec, the Liberal Government of the time ordered the construction of a new airport based on projections that said it would lead to the area's prosperity. In fact, it was all the contrary for Montreal. So Torontonians are lucky, but the price to pay must not be too expensive for ordinary Canadians. Even if they are investors who contribute generously to political parties, that does not mean we should give them special consideration. The government, in particular, should not be allowed to do so.

[Fisheries, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Gazette article to which I referred says that the department dropped the requirement for individual contracts.

Does the minister admit that his about-face shows that until the provinces and workers' representatives are really involved in the decision-making process, he cannot go on claiming that the social contract is really being renewed?

[Fisheries, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Many times in this House, the Minister of Human Resources Development has championed consultation on the fisheries industry adjustment strategy, especially on the issue of individual contracts. However, on Saturday, his press secretary confirmed that the government would no longer require individual contracts:

There is really no need for a separate contract.

My question is this: Did the minister not consult with the unions on the obligation to sign individual contracts, which in the words of the union president added unnecessary stress and pressure to the people and that as a result, he had to retreat?

[Social Program Reform, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile her comments with the fact that, except for unemployment insurance, all the other areas which would be included in the reform are under provincial jurisdiction?